Once again, 2 Nephi 25:23

[JDave]

1972, Theodore M. Burton - Grace / Works / Reconcile

[quote name='Theodore M. Burton,

[JDave]

So it's time to summarize the findings. I labeled the quote Grace if it had a strong emphasis on Grace, Works if it had a strong emphasis on Works, and Reconcile it it had a strong emphasis on the need to be reconciled to Christ. If it emphasized multiple parts then it was so marked. Regarding an LDS soteriology, the labels Grace and Reconcile both focus on Christ and His part, while Works focuses on us and our part.

Grace - 9

Reconcile - 5

Grace & Reconcile - 1

Works - 11

Grace & Works - 7

Grace & Works & Reconcile - 2

So General Conference addresses that, in their use of 2 Nephi 25:23, focused on Christ numbered 15, whereas those that focused on man's works numbered 11. There were a separate 9 talks that seemed to evenly divide the focus.

One of the main issues was whether there was a usage of the verse to indicate that we should "do all we can do" or "give all we can give". That usage was found in several talks, most notably Cook 1993, Romney 1979, Romney 1976, and Bennion 1957. These four talks were the most in line with the OP, that we should truly do all we can do in order to be in a position to receive the grace of Christ.

A couple talks (Faust 2001 and Scott 1981) spoke of a process of sanctification and receiving sanctifying grace after doing all we can do.

A good number of talks, most notably Zivic 2007, Oaks 1998, Lee 1970, Lee 1956, Hanks 1956, and Romney 1955, very clearly equated "all we can do" to all or some of the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Many also referred to it as a way to accept the grace of Christ into our lives. It is very interesting that some of the more outspoken authors for an emphasis on works, namely President Lee and Elder Romney, also seem to define "doing all we can do" as being the 1st principles of the gospel -- Faith, Repentance, and Baptism by water and by the Spirit.

Some talks (Uchtdorf 2007, Scott 2006, Oaks 1998, Oaks 1988) went out of their way to clarify that we do not earn our own salvation, rather it is through the merits, mercy and grace of Jesus Christ.

A very interesting discovery for me was a few talks (McMullin 1999, Scott 1997, and especially Oaks 1988) that use language very similar to that of Stephen Robinson in "Believing Christ". They specifically reference the verse 2 Ne. 25:23 in discussing how even after all we can do in being obedient, we are dependent on the grace of Christ. Oaks reverses the phrasing of the end of the verse to make this point.

CONCLUSION: Regarding 2 Ne. 25:23, the LDS position is definitely that some works are required to accept the grace of Christ and thus salvation. When these works are ever described, it is in the terms of faith, repentance, and baptism by water and by the Spirit. LDS usage of the verse in General Conference leans slightly in the direction of focusing on Christ's role and preeminence, as opposed to the need for us to do works. Some authors go out of their way to make a point regarding how essential our personal works are, and some others go out of their way to make a point that we do not earn our salvation.

The OP paragraph describing the LDS position regarding this verse used only very small phrases from LDS authors, which often led to reading that small phrase out of context of the talk it was contained in (such as whether the quote was referencing sanctifying grace, or rhetorically speaking about challenges). By not including a more full set of quotes, it also led to a misunderstanding about what was meant by "all we can do" by some authors (e.g. repentance, baptism, being faithful, etc.). And finally, by only including selective phrases that emphasized the necessity of our works there was a distinct possibility to those inside the LDS faith to wonder whether any emphasis on Christ was left out intentionally. For those outside of our faith it would be very easy to misunderstand the LDS doctrine and presume that we believe that we earn our own salvation, that we don't emphasize the role of Christ very much, and that we require people to literally do everything they can all the time or they will be bereft of the grace of God.

I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment that we must extend our best effort, especially as opposed to a half-hearted effort. We cannot serve both God and Mammon. We cannot be preparing for a mansion in heaven while simultaneously constructing a summer cottage in hell. The grace of God is freely available to all, and we simply must accept it with a sincere heart. Both Evangelicals and Mormons believe that we are saved by grace. And we both believe that we must accept that grace. We do disagree about what it is that we can do to accept that grace, that is obvious. But we still do agree that we must do something to accept the grace of Christ, even if it is simply to recognize and feel sorrow for our sins and then throw ourselves trustingly upon the mercy of Christ. Even if we accept that that is all we can do, then we still see that assuredly it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do.

EDITED the totals to reflect relabeling Elder Simmons talk from N/A to Grace & Works.

[zerinus]

Lightbearer,

You wrote:

That is unfair. Zerinus offered his own definition. I simply asked him if he thought he had repented according to his own definition. He was free to qualify his definition or restate matters in any way. So far, he has not done so. I set no trap.

You wrote:

Alas, no.

You wrote:

Yes.

You wrote:

Again, yes, I do commit sin. No, I don't think one can be born again by degree. One is either born or not; one is either born again or not. Yes, salvation is a process, one that begins with the new birth and culminates in our future glorification.

As to the meaning of 1 John 5:18, which is the key text you are citing here, in context it clearly does not mean that the person who is born of God never commits any sin. We know this from the immediate context, in which John says that if a brother commits a sin other than the "sin unto death" we should pray for God to forgive such a person (vv. 16-17). Earlier in the same epistle, as I have already pointed out, John says that we are deceiving ourselves if we claim not to have any sin (1:8 ). John wrote to encourage his readers not to sin, but immediately says that if anyone does commit sin they have Jesus Christ as their Advocate with the Father and the propitiation for their sins (2:1-2). These statements make it explicit that John is not teaching that those born of God never commit any act of sin. Therefore the statements in 3:6, 9 and 5:18 must be qualified in some way. They mean either that the one born of God does not live in (habitual) sin (a possible connotation of the present tense verb, i.e., "practices sin") or that the one born of God does not commit the "sin unto death," or some such similar qualification.

What do you thing Jesus meant when said,

[Vance]

<SNIP>

That was a herculean effort. Well done.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

I'll take your comments one bite at a time, for clarity and because I just can't mount a complete response all at one shot. Regarding Harold B. Lee, you commented:

Also, you are still misusing his "maximum of individual effort" phrase, which referred to spiritual certainty. Grace was described as being preceded by "personal striving".

I'm open to correction on this point, but let's look at the quotation. You made the above comment based on the following quotation (your emphasis):

Spiritual certainty that is necessary to salvation must be preceded by a maximum of individual effort. Grace, or the free gift of the Lord

[JDave]

I'll take your comments one bite at a time, for clarity and because I just can't mount a complete response all at one shot.

Sounds good to me. Have fun.

I'm open to correction on this point, but let's look at the quotation. ... Lee explicitly says that this "spiritual certainty...is necessary to salvation." If spiritual certainty is necessary to salvation, and if a maximum of individual effort is prerequisite to spiritual certainty, then it would seem that individual effort is prerequisite to receiving the grace that actually secures salvation.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the maximum of personal effort is presented as synonymous with the personal striving required to receive grace. Is President Lee referring to a spiritual certainty that comes through sanctification, and is perhaps more applicable to the LDS ideas about exaltation? At the least, Lee left off the qualifier "maximum" on the sentence talking about receiving grace in general. But, honestly, President Lee does speak quite boldly about us needing to "do all we can do", so it is indeed splitting hairs a bit to even worry about this for the discussion of the LDS position on 2 Ne. 25:23.

My only remaining concern would be your usage of the phrase. I would strongly object to continued use of the term "maximum of individual effort" as being stated by President Lee as preceding or being necessary for the receipt of any grace, as you did in the OP and in your most recent summary post. At least make it clear that you are referring to grace in the sense of ultimate salvation, or include the reasoning you just laid out. Otherwise you are claiming to know what President Lee meant to say, even though he didn't really say it.

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

Okay, but I think I was clear and have been clear all along that Lee and others are saying that such effort (maximal or otherwise) is needed for what you call ultimate salvation, i.e., exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom. I have stated quite clearly that salvation in the general sense of resurrection to life in some heavenly kingdom in fact requires absolutely no effort on our part in LDS doctrine. Just don't be a son of perdition and you're "saved" in that sense. So when I have used Lee's wording in reference to "salvation," I have already made it clear that the highest form or type of salvation is meant.

Sounds good to me. Have fun.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the maximum of personal effort is presented as synonymous with the personal striving required to receive grace. Is President Lee referring to a spiritual certainty that comes through sanctification, and is perhaps more applicable to the LDS ideas about exaltation? At the least, Lee left off the qualifier "maximum" on the sentence talking about receiving grace in general. But, honestly, President Lee does speak quite boldly about us needing to "do all we can do", so it is indeed splitting hairs a bit to even worry about this for the discussion of the LDS position on 2 Ne. 25:23.

My only remaining concern would be your usage of the phrase. I would strongly object to continued use of the term "maximum of individual effort" as being stated by President Lee as preceding or being necessary for the receipt of any grace, as you did in the OP and in your most recent summary post. At least make it clear that you are referring to grace in the sense of ultimate salvation, or include the reasoning you just laid out. Otherwise you are claiming to know what President Lee meant to say, even though he didn't really say it.

[JDave]

Okay, but I think I was clear and have been clear all along that Lee and others are saying that such effort (maximal or otherwise) is needed for what you call ultimate salvation, i.e., exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom. I have stated quite clearly that salvation in the general sense of resurrection to life in some heavenly kingdom in fact requires absolutely no effort on our part in LDS doctrine. Just don't be a son of perdition and you're "saved" in that sense. So when I have used Lee's wording in reference to "salvation," I have already made it clear that the highest form or type of salvation is meant.

Your distinction between general salvation and exaltation has been pretty good. Your distinction between general grace and some ultimate saving grace, or sanctifying grace has been lacking (as well as a few other things I already noted). A statement along the lines of "grace is always available, even to the vilest sinner falling well short of all they can do, by reconciling themselves to Christ and repenting" would go a long way here, as opposed to the notion that zero grace is activated in our lives until we are already doing our literal best.

[Bernard Gui]

CONCLUSION: Regarding 2 Ne. 25:23, the LDS position is definitely that some works are required to accept the grace of Christ and thus salvation.

Or, in other words, exactly what the scripture says.

Great work in hunting these down and doing a very helpful summary. Thank you!

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

JDave,

Okay, but I think I was clear and have been clear all along that Lee and others are saying that such effort (maximal or otherwise) is needed for what you call ultimate salvation, i.e., exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom. I have stated quite clearly that salvation in the general sense of resurrection to life in some heavenly kingdom in fact requires absolutely no effort on our part in LDS doctrine. Just don't be a son of perdition and you're "saved" in that sense. So when I have used Lee's wording in reference to "salvation," I have already made it clear that the highest form or type of salvation is meant.

Not exactly. In the OP, you said:

As I understand it, according to LDS teaching, what 2 Nephi 25:23 means is that Jesus' blood, his atonement, will save us, but only after we have done all we can to save ourselves by keeping His commandments. We are saved by grace, but that grace of God comes only "after all we can do." Grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. "After all we can do" means a maximum of individual effort and includes extending our best effort; that is, grace is a supplement to our best efforts. In the plan of salvation as the LDS Church teaches it, God does for human beings only what they cannot do for themselves. No mortal

[JDave]

That was a herculean effort. Well done.

Or, in other words, exactly what the scripture says.

Great work in hunting these down and doing a very helpful summary. Thank you!

Bernard

You're welcome. It was enlightening, personally rewarding, and well worth the effort to help clear things up.

[Bernard Gui]

You're welcome. It was enlightening, personally rewarding, and well worth the effort to help clear things up.

Well, two of us have repeatedly asked Rob if he will remove Elder Simmons' talk from his list.

Haven't heard yet if he still thinks the quote was in context.

Bernard

[zerinus]

Okay, but I think I was clear and have been clear all along that Lee and others are saying that such effort (maximal or otherwise) is needed for what you call ultimate salvation, i.e., exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom.

Perhaps all they meant was just repentance, according to the biblical definition as I had told you (including baptism for the remission of sins).

I have stated quite clearly that salvation in the general sense of resurrection to life in some heavenly kingdom in fact requires absolutely no effort on our part in LDS doctrine. Just don't be a son of perdition and you're "saved" in that sense.

And I believe I have already explained to you before that that is not quite true either. Even for entering the lower kingdoms something is required. Here is the condition for entering the Terrestrial Kingdom:

D&C 76

:

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but

afterwards received it

.

75 These are they who are

honorable men of the earth,

who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

So they still have to do something to be saved in the Terrestrial Kingdom. They have to be

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

Aren't you holding me to a higher standard of precision than you hold your own prophets?

Your distinction between general salvation and exaltation has been pretty good. Your distinction between general grace and some ultimate saving grace, or sanctifying grace has been lacking (as well as a few other things I already noted). A statement along the lines of "grace is always available, even to the vilest sinner falling well short of all they can do, by reconciling themselves to Christ and repenting" would go a long way here, as opposed to the notion that zero grace is activated in our lives until we are already doing our literal best.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Unless this distinction is clearly and consistently made, misunderstandings will abound.

Do the LDS scriptures, or the LDS prophets, clearly and consistently make this distinction?

Is this distinction clearly made in 2 Nephi 25:23, the very text we are supposed to be discussing?

Aren't you holding me to a higher standard of completeness, clarity, and precision than that exhibited by your own scriptures and prophets?

May we not fairly conclude that "misunderstandings will abound" due to the lack of clarity and consistency in LDS scriptures and prophetic statements with regard to this distinction?

[zerinus]

May we not fairly conclude that "misunderstandings will abound" due to the lack of clarity and consistency in LDS scriptures and prophetic statements with regard to this distinction?

That ambiguity also exists in Bible. The problem with the Evangelicals is that they stick to one side of the ambiguity (the less credible one), and ignore the other. The scriptures that say that man has to do something to be saved far outweigh those that say he has to do nothing. The latter variety are confined to a few teachings of Paul, which are often misunderstood; whereas the former variety occupy much of the rest of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, and include the express teachings of Jesus Himself. Sorry Rob, you are out on a limb on this one.

By the way, care to answer my previous question by any chance?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

We were discussing the definition of repentance, and you claimed that repentance means to stop sinning -- and you even claimed that you had actually stopped sinning yourself. When I pointed out two problems with this claim, you dismissed those points as a "dodge." I'm sorry, but our discussion came to a grinding halt at that point.

[Vance]

Rob,

We were discussing the definition of repentance and you claimed,

I have sinned against God. The penalty for sinning against God is eternal separation from God.

I asked,

Does Christ suffer this punishment in your stead?

Is He eternally separated from God?

If He is not a separate being from God, the Father, how can He ever be separated from God?

You said you would answer these questions. Are you going to live up to your word?

Do you even have answers to these questions?

Your continued avoidance of these questions is an implicit admission on your part that you CAN'T answer them.

[David T]

Dave,

Aren't you holding me to a higher standard of precision than you hold your own prophets?

I do believe that context of who is speaking and to whom is important. Your presentation, as I see it, is intended as an introduction and warning against LDS beliefs that you view as being in contrast to your understanding of the Bible. It is not assumed that the readership is familiar with LDS terminology, usage, and basic theological worldview.

Discourses given in a Church atmosphere, generally, have been given with the assumption that the listener is part of Mormon culture - and that includes linguistic shorthand. I recognize this can be a problem. In fact, the new Mormon.org has been doing a respectable job of re-translating the basic doctrinal elements out of 'LDS-ese' into language accessible by the 'outside' world (into phrases that now appear wierd and alien to many LDS members in its context!) . I do think that often leaders (and manual writers) are so ingrained in LDS culture that cultural assumptions of language and intention are made without even realizing it. Those familiar with the culture are on the same page, and those who may be new or unfamiliar, unfortunately, can be left confused. I recognize and admit this.

This isn't just a Church thing, it's a cultural thing, and can be seen in any cross-cultural discussion. It just becomes more significant and frustrating when such religious concepts are debated and analyzed word-for-word.

It's why interreligious discussions in general often come down to semantics being argued. There's definitely cultural associations with words and phrases within a culture that are difficult to recognize (and see the need to translate) when one isn't intimately familiar with any other cultures.

This is, by the way, an acknowledgement that there is a communication problem on both sides. Does that sound reasonable to you?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Does Christ suffer this punishment in your stead?

Yes, with the qualification I am about to make below.

Is He eternally separated from God?

No, of course not. He suffers the punishment for my sins, but he suffers it in a different way because he is not merely one ordinary man, but the God-man, providing an infinite atonement. Thus, he does not need to suffer eternal separation from God in order to suffer on my behalf.

If He is not a separate being from God, the Father, how can He ever be separated from God?

He can't.

You said you would answer these questions.

No, actually, I didn't.

Are you going to live up to your word?

More juvenile badgering.

Do you even have answers to these questions?

Yes, of course, as you can plainly see, and as you already knew.

Your continued avoidance of these questions is an implicit admission on your part that you CAN'T answer them.

Buzz. Wrong again.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

What you say is fair enough, up to a point. However, when the Book of Mormon consistently fails to make the sorts of qualifications or explanations that Mormons insist must be made, your explanation starts wearing thin from my perspective. Furthermore, the fact is that I have been far more precise and made far more qualifications in expressing the LDS view than you will find any LDS prophet making, even if you widen the search to large swaths of material.

But I agree that a lot of miscommunication between evangelicals and Mormons takes place and that part of the problem is the different "cultures" of the two religious traditions.

I do believe that context of who is speaking and to whom is important. Your presentation, as I see it, is intended as an introduction and warning against LDS beliefs that you view as being in contrast to your understanding of the Bible. It is not assumed that the readership is familiar with LDS terminology, usage, and basic theological worldview.

Discourses given in a Church atmosphere, generally, have been given with the assumption that the listener is part of Mormon culture - and that includes linguistic shorthand. I recognize this can be a problem. In fact, the new Mormon.org has been doing a respectable job of re-translating the basic doctrinal elements out of 'LDS-ese' into language accessible by the 'outside' world (into phrases that now appear wierd and alien to many LDS members in its context!) . I do think that often leaders (and manual writers) are so ingrained in LDS culture that cultural assumptions of language and intention are made without even realizing it. Those familiar with the culture are on the same page, and those who may be new or unfamiliar, unfortunately, can be left confused. I recognize and admit this.

This isn't just a Church thing, it's a cultural thing, and can be seen in any cross-cultural discussion. It just becomes more significant and frustrating when such religious concepts are debated and analyzed word-for-word.

It's why interreligious discussions in general often come down to semantics being argued. There's definitely cultural associations with words and phrases within a culture that are difficult to recognize (and see the need to translate) when one isn't intimately familiar with any other cultures.

This is, by the way, an acknowledgement that there is a communication problem on both sides. Does that sound reasonable to you?

[Vance]

Yes, with the qualification I am about to make below.

Can you support this "qualification" with scripture?

No, of course not.

So then, either the punishment isn't really forever separation from God to begin with, or Jesus doesn't REALLY take the your punishment for you.

He suffers the punishment for my sins, but he suffers it in a different way because he is not merely one ordinary man, but the God-man, providing an infinite atonement.

Can you support this premise with scripture? Or are you just making this up as you go?

Thus, he does not need to suffer eternal separation from God in order to suffer on my behalf.

Really? So, He doesn't need to take your punishment to actually take your punishment?

Can you support this statement with scripture?

He can't.

Based on your false theology you are correct. And so He CAN'T suffer the punishment for your sins. PERIOD!!!

Your "trinity" theology renders Him INCAPABLE of suffering your punishment.

No, actually, I didn't.

Yes, you did. See post #181. And we haven't gotten to all of the ones you said you would answer.

More juvenile badgering.

More juvenile whining.

Yes, of course, as you can plainly see, and as you already knew.

Well, only by using the logical fallacy of "special pleading". And can you actually support these illogical answers with scripture? Can you show that Jesus didn't need to take your punishment to actually take your punishment?

Buzz. Wrong again.

BUZZ!!! My statement is correct.

Oh and, another question you said you would answer is, "Does Christ repay the banker?"

[David T]

nackhadlow,

What you say is fair enough, up to a point. However, when the Book of Mormon consistently fails to make the sorts of qualifications or explanations that Mormons insist must be made, your explanation starts wearing thin from my perspective.

It is true that the Book of Mormon doesn't distinguish between degrees of glory. Exaltation is indeed not in mind at this stage of the game. The Book of Mormon does, however, set the overarching rules of the game. The book of Mormon is the keystone of reference and orientation.

The Book of Mormon distinguishes between salvation from physical death (which is universal through the Resurrection), and salvation from spiritual death (the personal and individual inability to endure the presence of the Lord). Salvation from spiritual death is the Book of Mormon's ultimate view on Salvation.

My understanding is that the further revelations further break down and expand knowledge and details, but remain subject to the overarching framework which is layed out below.

Grace is applied in degrees. What our actions in this life enable us to do is accelerate its effects, applying manifestations of Grace Today, which make us more useful instruments in the hands of the Father in the here and now.

Elder Nelson made clear he understood the principles of Justification and Sanctification, but felt it was important to focus on the things we can do to pro-actively accelerate the perfection process. He said,

" From time to time we encounter people who wonder about such principles as justification, sanctification, and grace. Important as these are, they are largely in the hands of Almighty God. It would be better for us to focus our efforts on those things over which we have control, such as personal faith, repentance, and qualification for temple ordinances and covenants. That done, we can totally trust our loving and merciful Heavenly Father to extend to us what gifts of grace we need in order to return to Him.

Grace is granted to us as we conform to God

[Bernard Gui]

Do the LDS scriptures, or the LDS prophets, clearly and consistently make this distinction?

While I haven't read all the words of every LDS general authority, I believe when they speak

about salvation they mean salvation in the celestial kingdom - exaltation. When they speak of

resurrection and kingdoms of glory, they will mention salvation in its general sense that would

compare with Protestant understanding. After all, the mission of the Savior and the Church

is to save all men in the Celestial Kingdom, including you!

Is this distinction clearly made in 2 Nephi 25:23, the very text we are supposed to be discussing?

Yes. Verse 23 appears early in Nephi's expansive prophesies about the future of his people, the Jews, and the

gentiles, and a comprehensive treatment of the Gospel (chapters 23-33). It's one of the most remarkable passages of all scripture.

The apex of this exposition is found in Chapter 31:19-21...

[After baptism....] after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you,

Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the

merits of him who is mighty to save. Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love

of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the

end, behold, thus saith the Father: "Ye shall have eternal life." ...This is the way; and there is none other way nor

name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God...this is the doctrine of

Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.

Aren't you holding me to a higher standard of completeness, clarity, and precision than that exhibited by your own scriptures and prophets?

I don't think so. You would agree that 2 Nephi 25:23 should not be required to stand alone as an expression of the LDS

doctrine of salvation. Nephi writes 11 chapters to explain what it is all about.

May we not fairly conclude that "misunderstandings will abound" due to the lack of clarity and consistency in LDS scriptures and prophetic statements with regard to this distinction?

On this issue? No.

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Try to look at this from my perspective for a moment. The LDS Church claims that the Bible has lost or had removed many plain and precious things, resulting in the obscuring of the gospel of salvation. It claims that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel. Yet the Book of Mormon says nothing in support of the distinction between a general salvation (resurrection) and an individual salvation (exaltation). That would seem to be rather crucial to the LDS gospel, especially since several Mormons here have chastised me for supposedly ignoring this all-important distinction. So how can it be missing from the entire Book of Mormon?

Although the Book of Mormon distinguishes (more or less) physical and spiritual death, I know of no text that distinguishes salvation from physical death and salvation from spiritual death. To the contrary, it seems to teach that salvation delivers people from both temporal (physical) and spiritual death. Perhaps you could cite some specific texts on this point.